# A Tale of Fairness: When a Towing Company Steps Up ## Meeting Overview On the crisp morning of December 13, 2024, Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice convened a vehicle impound appeal hearing that would demonstrate an all-too-rare quality in municipal proceedings: genuine accountability. What began as a routine challenge to towing fees evolved into a moment of unexpected corporate responsibility, as the owner of Heston Towing voluntarily acknowledged unfair practices and offered immediate restitution. The case involved Christopher Cicero's appeal of storage fees for his 2012 Honda Accord, which had been impounded from a residential permit zone near Western Washington University. While the impound itself was undisputed—the vehicle was clearly parked illegally—Cicero questioned whether his car should have been towed to Ferndale when closer storage lots were available. What made this hearing remarkable was not the challenge itself, but the towing company owner's frank admission of fault and immediate offer to make things right. Participating in the virtual hearing were Rice as the presiding examiner, Tony Turner from Bellingham's parking enforcement division, Chris Heston calling in by phone from Heston Towing, and Cicero representing himself as the appellant. The hearing clerk, Christy Bowker, managed the technical aspects of the Zoom proceeding, ensuring all testimony would be properly recorded for the official record. ## The City's Case: A Clear Violation Tony Turner, Bellingham's parking code compliance officer, methodically presented the city's evidence for the November 14, 2024 impound. His testimony painted a picture of ongoing enforcement challenges in the residential permit zones near WWU, where complaints from residents about illegal parking had become routine. "We receive a lot of complaints in that area," Turner explained. "It's right down the street from Western Washington University, and so a lot of students park there, and the residents got together, and they got a residential permit zone put together." The enforcement action that day wasn't isolated—Turner described his department as being "in the area pretty consistently, handing out tickets" in response to what he characterized as numerous repeat offenders who "just ignore the ticket and the signs." When towing becomes necessary, he noted, "once we bring in the trucks we tow everyone in violation." Turner's photographic evidence was thorough: the tow-away zone sign clearly visible on the street, the Honda Accord parked illegally with its license plate clearly shown, a close-up of the windshield confirming no visitor permit was displayed, and finally the vehicle being loaded onto Heston's tow truck. He had even gone the extra step of contacting the city's permits department to confirm no active permit was associated with the vehicle. The hearing examiner confirmed key details through her questioning: multiple vehicles were towed that day as part of a comprehensive enforcement action, the warning signs were clearly posted and visible, and the enforcement was triggered by ongoing resident complaints about the persistent parking violations in the area. ## Heston Towing's Admission: "That's Not Fair to the Customer" Chris Heston's testimony began routinely enough, walking through the timeline documented on his company's impound invoice. The tow truck was dispatched at 3:13 PM on November 14, arrived on scene at 3:28 PM, began the actual towing process at 3:50 PM, and completed storage at the Ferndale yard at 4:50 PM—a total of one and a half hours of billable towing time at $400 per hour. Heston explained the complexity of the tow: "This car was pinned in, basically with about maybe a foot and a half to spare on front and back. So it took a little while to wiggle it out so that we didn't cause any damage to this vehicle or to other vehicles in the area." The process required placing plastic "skates" under the tires and carefully pulling the car sideways to extract it from the tight parking situation. But when Cicero presented his case, everything changed. Heston listened to the appellant's argument about being towed unnecessarily far to Ferndale rather than a closer Bellingham location, and his response was immediate and unequivocal: "I agree with Mr. Cicero." "To be honest, I'm looking at the charges and the times, and I can probably say that our Bellingham yard was full at the time, so it came up to our Ferndale yard," Heston acknowledged. "And, to be honest, that's not their responsibility. That's ours." The towing company owner went further, directly addressing Cicero's claim about being told the company tries to balance vehicles between lots: "I think the wording was done wrong ultimately... I would say we need to work on our wording. And no, I don't find faults with his statement at all." In a moment of remarkable candor about his industry, Heston added: "Unfortunately, I'm in a very negative industry. But we don't... let's be honest here. But yeah, it doesn't need to be worse than it is." ## Cicero's Appeal: A College Father's Frustration Christopher Cicero approached the hearing with the prepared statement of someone who had clearly thought deeply about the fairness of what had occurred. Reading from notes to steady his nerves, he began by acknowledging the fundamental facts: "I do concede that my vehicle was unlawfully parked and was subject to being ticketed or towed... My son, a college student, made a mistake, and we understand that." But Cicero's appeal went beyond the basic impound to challenge the decision-making process that resulted in his vehicle being towed from Bellingham to Ferndale "which is not the closest storage lot." He described how his son had initially gone to the wrong lot, "made the logical assumption that it would be at the lot closest to the point of tow." When Cicero had called to inquire about the location, he testified that "the towing company representative admitted this decision was based on their policy to keep the lots evenly filled. This demonstrates that the towing location was not determined by necessity or efficiency, but by the arbitrary internal policy designed to spread out vehicles." Perhaps most concerning to Cicero was the apparent flexibility in the charges themselves. He described how "when I initially called the total charge was... about $950, with a $400 per hour rate being stated, and then the company... lowered the charged by about half an hour to hour and a half, initially said it was 2 hours, which further demonstrates that these fees are negotiable and not based solely on operational cost." This experience led Cicero to broader concerns about fairness in a college town: "This raises concerns about fairness, particularly as this occurred in a college town, and disproportionately affects individuals like my son, who are less equipped to challenge these practices." His request was measured and reasonable: "While I accept the responsibility of the initial parking violation, I believe the towing company's decision [to tow] the vehicle to Ferndale rather than to a closer lot, constitutes an excessive and unnecessary financial burden." ## An Unexpected Resolution What followed was a masterclass in how accountability can transform a potentially adversarial proceeding into a moment of mutual respect. When Hearing Examiner Rice asked Heston to respond to Cicero's statements, the towing company owner's response was immediate and comprehensive. "I fully agree with that," Heston said regarding Cicero's assertion about excessive charges. "So I have no qualms or issues reimbursing that half hour... That's not fair to the customer. I fully agree with that." Rice confirmed the specifics: a refund of the half-hour charge totaling $200 plus tax, which Heston committed to handling directly rather than requiring city involvement. "Absolutely. I will take care of that right now actually," Heston promised, noting he would mail the check to Cicero's Seattle address that same day. The hearing's tone shifted dramatically as Cicero expressed genuine surprise and gratitude: "Just thank you to Mr. Heston... I appreciate your integrity, Mr. Heston." He admitted the formal hearing process was more than he had expected: "I was thinking that I could just write a letter and say, could we, you know, do what we just did." ## A Model for Municipal Accountability This brief hearing, lasting less than an hour, demonstrated several important principles of fair municipal governance. First, it showed the value of formal hearing processes even for relatively small disputes—the structured presentation of evidence and opportunity for response created space for truth to emerge. Second, it illustrated how business integrity can transform potential conflict into resolution. Most significantly, it highlighted the importance of genuine accountability. Rather than defending practices simply because they were legally permissible, Heston Towing acknowledged when those practices were unfair to customers. The company's willingness to voluntarily refund charges—without being ordered to do so—sets a standard that other municipal contractors might well emulate. The case also revealed the particular vulnerabilities of college students and their families in university towns, where parking enforcement is necessarily strict but where the consequences can be disproportionately burdensome for young people still learning to navigate adult responsibilities. ## Closing & What's Ahead The hearing concluded with expressions of mutual appreciation all around. Hearing Examiner Rice commended Heston for "taking that on, and for sending that check to Mr. Cicero," while Cicero thanked everyone involved for what had become an unexpectedly positive experience. As Rice formally closed the record, the proceeding stood as a reminder that even in mundane municipal matters—vehicle impounds, parking violations, administrative fees—there are opportunities for grace, accountability, and fairness. The formal hearing process had provided a forum not just for legal resolution, but for human connection and corporate responsibility. For Christopher Cicero, what had begun as frustration over excessive charges ended with both financial relief and restored faith in the possibility of fair treatment. For Heston Towing, a potential adversarial proceeding became an opportunity to demonstrate the integrity that can distinguish responsible businesses in challenging industries. And for the broader community, the hearing served as a model of how municipal processes can work when all parties approach them with good faith and genuine commitment to fairness. The $200 refund was modest in dollar terms, but the precedent set—that corporate accountability and customer fairness should trump strict adherence to technically permissible practices—resonated far beyond this single case. In a time when trust in institutions often seems strained, this small hearing in Bellingham offered a glimpse of how things can work when people choose to do what's right, not just what's legal.